As a resident of Riga, I can't help but think that someone is living an incredibly shelted life - either me or most commentators here, whatever their nationality. Walking the streets today, I cannot see, feel or hear any of the heat this issue supposedly generates. Shop assistants with Russian name tags answer me in Latvian, ones with Latvian names happilly serve Russian customers in Russian. The Russian waitresses in my coffee shop chat amongst themselves in Russian and interact with me in perfect Latvian. Does this prove that ordinary people have higher IQs or at least more common sense than the supposed elite? Probably. No Latvian outside the nuttiest lunatic fringe wants anyone to be deported. No Russian except maybe some bitter pensioners in Vecmilgravis (a Soviet suburb of Riga) believes the guff about them being "excluded" - Usakovs who feels so humiliated is the mayor of Riga for god's sake! This is a non-issue whipped up by extremists and manipulated by politicians here and in Russia. I suggest everyone here takes a walk outside and thinks for a minute about what a load of bull this is. And if everyone posted a few less angrhyu comments, the whole silly thing would be forgotten more quickly.

The other one shows the share of actual supporters of the Russian language as % of all citizens entitled to vote. Many people refused to participate in the referendum considering it to be annoying and absurd. Initially the President also declared that he will not participate in this "nonsense", but later changed his mind and voted against. So what we actually should care about is the share of votes FOR as opposed to the total number of the potential voters.http://ritvars.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/18-02-2012-no-balsstiesc4abgi...

The results do not look good for our Neo Nazi friends (Linderman and Osipov) who initiated the referendum and for their buddies, the Putinista from "Harmony Center".

These are interesting maps but I would ask you to explain them further. How do, for example, the dark green areas relate to the overall population density ? Am I correct in concluding that the Riga area has some of the highest % of Russian population ? Is there an EU source showing similar info in English ?

You can see the abnormally high concentration of Russians in the major cities due to the influx of Soviet settlers, who were brought in en masse.

Riga also had HQ of the Soviet Army for the region based there. Therefore there were much more occupation army officers than in other two Baltic states. Many of them remained there after the independence was restored and today are amongst the most bitter opponents of the Latvian state, as are their children, brought up in Soviet traditions. This is not unlike the situation with the fundamentalist immigrants in the countries at the West of the Europe.

If we believe the first graph, there have been more Russians than Latvians since 1970. In 1989 the ratio is amazing 900.000 Russians to 500.000 Latvians and even in 2000 Latvians are still less numerous. Something is definitely wrong with the figures.
If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Latvia you'll see that Latvians have never been less than 52% of population.

I see your point.
No, the graph is correct. Although it looks like the green and the red would be placed on top of each other, in fact the red is placed in front the green for comparison. Both of them start at the zero base line.

All I can say is that I am living in Riga and I do know few Polish persons here. All of them are Latvian patriots. One lady I know is even more Latvian Nationalist than many Latvians themselves. I guess it is something to do with history - the 1939 occupation of Poland by USSR hand-in-hand with Nazis and the Katyn. You know, when USSR invaded the Poland from the East, Latvia, which had a border with Poland at that time, accepted Polish refugees. Many Poles were living here for centuries. Poles are great patriots of their nation and country, just like Latvians are. So we understand each other very well, we do not have conflicting interests, and we get along very well.

As of those Poles who are living in the East of Latvia I am not so sure. The Russification there has been very strong. But I just don't know to say more.

The failed referendum validates the proposition in "The Clash of Civilizations" : a theory by political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, that people's cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world. This theory ,originally formulated in a 1992 lecture at the American Enterprise Institute, appeared in a 1993 Foreign Affairs article titled "The Clash of Civilizations?", in response to Francis Fukuyama's 1992 book, "The End of History and the Last Man".Pls do not take this just as an academic discussion and miss the genesis of many conflicts all over the planet over the assertion of ethnicity. I support my fellow Latvians in their moral right behind the referendum.

I feel sorry for the ethnic Russians, living in Latvia. Many of them were born in Latvia before or after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many of them moved to Latvia decades ago and spent their entire lives working and living in this country. Latvia is their home, and yet they have to carry the burden of Latvia's historical grudge against the Soviet occupation. They represent the 'occupants' in Latvia and are constantly reminded to 'go home', conveniently forgetting that Latvia IS THEIR HOME.

Exclusion and humiliation of ethnic Russians in Latvia by ignorant individuals, who can't see beyond their hatred of Russia that these ethnic Russians have as much right to participate in the social dialog and not be excluded on the grounds of their ethnicity, is going to bring nothing but further drift in society and problems in the future. Latvian policy makers should learn from history and examples of other countries before these problems arrive at their doorstep. Unfortunately right now ethnic Russians in Latvia have no adequate representation in the government. Moreover, any attempt by them to get their voices heard on the political level is viewed almost as an attempt against the Latvian independence itself.

Unlike what was said in the comments below, many western and Scandinavian European countries including Sweden, Italy, Spain, England and others, have officially recognised minority languages, which are used officially in places where there is high proportion of any particular ethnic minority. For instance in Wales they use Cymru along with English and Gaelic in Scotland. In some parts of the UK they even started using Polish language along with English. And that is done to bring the society closer together, not drive it apart by making someone feel excluded. That is the right thing to do. Latvia should learn from this example. Think about people first, and move on.

On what grounds are they excluded then? And what are the facts that you referring to? Also, I was under the impression that everything said here is an opinion, so if you don't mind I will continue to present my 'Point of View', whether you like what I say or not.

I suggest that if you disagree with someone's opinion, you state your own arguments as to why you disagree. Simply attacking it by making vague claims won't do. I am quite curious to hear your point of view, and that 'solid evidence' that you no doubt have. Because so far you presented neither.

Your given examples are a bit ridiculous - Sweden, Italy, Spain, England, those are all big nations, with population far more grater than in Latvia. And how can you even compare situation in UK of whats happening in Latvia, historically England invaded Scotland, Walsh, Ireland and half of the world for that matter, and now you are saying how good of a country they are to allow a Gaelic in Scotland as an official language... are you serious?

In a whole world there's probably only around 2 million people who speak Latvian, so it's naive to think that Latvian culture would survive more that couple generations if there would be another official language (in this situation it doesn't even matter if it't Russian or English, for example).

How did it survive all the way up from 1198 to 1918 then, I wonder?
It is true that technically the grounds for non-citizenship is not ethnicity. But really, vast majority of people who consciously immigrated to Latvia have left or died. Most non-citizens now have been brought to Latvia as kids or were born in Latvia. This is not fair in the slightest.
Your goal of preserving your language is commendable. The means you chose for it are despicable.

Those who were brought as kids or were born in Latvia until 1991, grew up in USSR. They believed everything what they were taught in Soviet schools and few of them actually ever learned Latvian. Amongst other things they believed that inclusion of Latvia into the USSR was good thing, that the Soviet occupation never happened and that killing and deportations of the Latvian population either never happened or were absolutely justified. By the way, many of them exhibit this worldview even today. It is very popular amongst Russian journalists in Latvia - one of the major hatred mongering chauvinist forces. It is, actually, doubtful if growing up in a colonist family in an occupied territory should give you any rights to the citizenship of the restored country your parents willingly or unwillingly helped to oppress.

It may be "not fair" to those people, but doing otherwise would be "unfair" to the other people. That's life. And it is not Latvia's fault. It was the USSR and first of all Stalin who created this unpleasant situation.

Nevertheless, all those people still have the right for naturalization. And those born after 1991 actually can get citizenship after simply requesting it.

P.S.
So do you believe the Latvian culture of 1918 to be identical to the one of 1198? Do you? Or you are just indulging in demagogy?

So those Latvians who were born until 1991 didn't grow up in USSR and somehow have a better worldview than Russians? What are you even talking about?
Also I didn't get your point about Latvian culture being different 800 years ago. Of course it was. But do you think it was different in 1917 and 1919? The point I was trying to get across is that 800 years without a national state did not stop Latvian culture from developing. The written language was invented with the help of German bishops. The staples of the modern Latvian culture (Barons, Valdemars etc.) have appeared when Latvia was a part of the Russian Empire. Having your own national state has no direct effect on the culture, these issues are just from different planes altogether.
You are fundamentally right, though. What happens is you're making Russians pay for Stalin's crimes. Yet Russians were not exempt from USSR totalitarian policies. If we check the facts, we will see that in fact Russian people have suffered the most from them. So every appeal to Russians still wanting to bring Stalin back and inflict repressions on everyone is ignorant and insulting. Even those people who have been unable to fit themselves into the free market and harbor a certain nostalgy for Soviet times, absolutely resent ideological dictate and GULag.

Just a quick "by the way" comment - there was no such concept as Latvian culture in 1198 or even in 1918 for that matter. Tautas padome in 1918 was composed almost exclusive of the alumni of St Petersburg University who spoke Russian as their first language. Lāčplēsis, the main national epic was only written in the late 19th century to try and artificially create some sense of national history. The concept of Latvian culture only started developing in the 30s under Ulmanis.

I don't want to get into discussions about this, I don't have neither time or nerve for that. But it will always amaze me, how people compare incomparable things, facts etc, to serve their beliefs. All I can say, is that I dream about day when all different nations, races, religions can live together in peace without throwing rocks at each other. I hope that day will come, when Latvians will have enough respect to realize that fellow Russians want to keep their language and culture wherever they go and Russians will respect Latvians enough to learn our language. But I'm afraid it's not beneficial for certain people, so this day may never come.

Look, I can certainly say that I (as most people) do not want to engage in any actual confrontation with Latvian people. I, too, hope that eventually all the hot heads from both sides will cool off, and we will live in Latvia together on equal grounds. We should all try to keep the problems of our ancestors from influencing our own behaviour. Cheers un lai veicas!

Historically Sweden invaded Finland and ruled it for several centuries. Today 6% of Swedes enjoy Swedish as a second state language. So, yes, we are serious. We want to be treated fairly just as Swedes are treated in Finland.

No one is stooping you from speaking Latvian and educating your kids in your language, but you have no rights to stop me from using language. For example, from teaching MY kids using My language in MY country with all of this paid for with MY taxes. The same with using Russian when communication with local authorities.

Swedish speakers have been living in Finland for 1000 years. They are historic minority, now about 5 % of the population. That is why there are two state languages in Finland.

Finnish speakers have arrived in Sweden recently (mostly first and second generation immigrants) and they make also about 5 % of the population. This is why there is only one state language in Sweden.

Nobody will stop you from speaking Russian in Latvia. I believe you can also use Russian in communicating with businesses and with your local authorities. But as soon as you will start to demand that Russian should get equal status with Latvian in a country that is called Latvia, you will find little understanding from Latvians. You will just not be respected. I am afraid this referendum did a lot of damage to the image of Russians, living in the territory of former Soviet empire.

And it is not only a Latvian issue. Muscovites do not like immigrants who look a bit different and speak Russian with an accent. I wonder what would be their reaction if Tajiks will start to demand a local language status for Tajik in Russia's capital city?

And what would the French say if Arab speakers will start to demand that Arab should be the second state language in France? There are several millions Arabs in France already and their number is increasing.

Russian speakers lived in Latvia for centuries. Well, obviously there was no Latvia as a state at that time, just as there was no Finland 1000 years ago. It's not like Russians just turned up at the border in 1940 :) Russians in Latvia are not Arabs in France. Russians lived in Latvia for centuries, even before WW2 we had Russian theaters, daily papers and other institutions.

No you can't use Russian with local authorities, this is precisely what people are demanding. You could probably do in unofficially, but naturally people want official recognition of their language.

I am not from Russia and I totally don't care about Russians-Tajiks relations. I have nothing to do with Russia.

I must be a bit strange. I care about Tibetians. Huge and enthusiastic crowd welcomed Dalai Lama in Tallinn Freedom Square last summer. I was there. He blessed us. I also care about Georgians, Tajiks and about Russians too. I mean these Russians who are living in Russia. Democratic, peaceful an prosperous Russia would be good for all of us. Now it looks that things are finally moving in the right direction in Russia.

I must admit that I am a bit surprised how attached you are to Latvia. Positively surprised. Many former Soviets do not feel much attached to the place where they live. They just like to migrate. Then you are more like Estonian. We are really deep-rooted in our ancestors land. Like one big family. I guess most small nations are all like this.

Russians who have been living in Latvia for centuries must then all be Latvian citizens, as the citizenship was granted to everybody who happened to be on Latvian soil in 1918. They enjoyed wide cultural autonomy, just like local Germans and Jews.

Current problems can be traced back to mass murders, -deportations and -population transfers during and after the WW2. I am afraid it will take several generations to heel these wounds. But I am optimist. I wish you well :)

"In some parts of the UK they even started using Polish language along with English". Polish language used as an official language in UK? It deserves the TIME magazine cover then...
I repeat meself here and again - some of the commentators missing the point alltogether.

Ethnic Russians in Latvia have no adequate representation in the government because they choose to vote for a party (Harmony Center) that has an agreement of co-operation with Mr. Putin's "United Russia". Since Mr. Putin regards the collapse of the Soviet Union (including, presumably, the recovery of Latvian independence) as the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century, it is difficult to regard Harmony Center as loyal to Latvia and to find Latvian parties willing to include them in a coalition government.

Btw, I went down the link to the Russia Today site and saw the picture with swastikas on Jewish tombstones.

This is just hilarious, as all the Neo-Nazis in Latvia are apparently actually Russians, and not Latvians at all. And some of them (surprise!) are even belonging to the Harmony Center, the pro-Moscow union of various parties of Russian Nationalists and/or Communists. It is funny how they are complaining about the "Nazis" which they themselves turn out to be.

News: September 2011. Police has detained two Russian persons for desecration of memorial to the Holocaust victims in Riga in 8 May, just 1 day before great Russian celebration of Soviet victory in the WWII. One of the detainees, Mr. A. Misnik, turned out to be Member of the Socialist Party, which is part of the "Harmony Center"!!! Obviously the desecration was intended to serve as a provocation, so that later it could be blamed on the mythical "Latvian Nazis" for propaganda purposes. Leader of the "Harmony Center" Nils Usakovs at first denied that A. Misnik is member of his organization, but later was forced to admit it.

Also: Latvian Police reporting on January 2011: Three young Russian speaking individuals were detained for desecration of Jewish Cemetery in Riga. The youngsters belong to the Skinhead movement. Police has found weapons at their homes.

"Also: Latvian Police reporting on January 2011: Three young Russian speaking individuals were detained for desecration of Jewish Cemetery in Riga. The youngsters belong to the Skinhead movement. Police has found weapons at their homes."

I wonder: if the youngsters are "russian-speaking" -- why we never heard their names?
Maybe, the reason is simple: because names of these "russians" are 100% latvian???

Besides, it is not the first time when police does not disclose names of felons to the public, to protect their privacy. Actually I would even say that that is the routine procedure. Very seldom you see in the news the full name of a person, either the criminal or the victim.

If you live in England, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden or Poland you are expected to learn the respective State language at school and to use it in communication with State institutions. The fact that ethnic minorities exist in all those countries does not give their respective ethnic languages the right to be the official State language and rightly so. And the same rule applies to smaller countries such as Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Austria and so on.

Just because that imperial colonial power Russia was the last empire within Europe does not mean its citizens and ethnic colonisers should have the right to continue to impose their language on others. By all means do so in Russia, but not outside it.

"If you live in England, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden or Poland you are expected to learn the respective State language at school and to use it in communication with State institutions."

Any "respective state language" -- at some point of history was no more than a language of a former occupants.
(BTW, this is especially true for English: the language of Anglo-saxon occupants of poor celtic Britain. :)

If Latvia is so Nazi and Russians in Latvia feel so discriminated, why they just don't move back to Russia?
Isn't it possible that Russians in Latvia want citizenship not because they want to raise Latvian economy, but because they want EU citizenship and will move Westwards as soon as they get it.

The funny thing about swivel-eyed Latvian nationalists is their complete lack of logical consistency. They would plaintively complain about Stalin's deportations and in the next breath would be calling for the deportation of the "colonists". Someone in the comments further down was trying to prove that Latvia under Ulmanis was (quote) "a liberal paradise of freedom and human rights".

No, of course Latvian are not Nazis. I would never say anything like that.

Yes, I think that Russians are discriminated in Latvia. Read the report by European Commission against Racism and Intolerance released today, there are plenty of discrimination issues raised:

ECRI reiterates its recommendation that the Latvian authorities confer eligibility and voting rights to resident “non-citizens” in local elections.

“Noncitizens” who were previously working in the municipal police have had to resign as at 1 March 2011, unless they had applied for naturalisation. ECRI finds that this measure amounts to direct racial discrimination as it involves differential treatment based on grounds of nationality which has no objective and reasonable justification.

Children who were born of “non-citizen” parents in Latvia after its independence should be granted Latvian citizenship automatically.

The policy on state language should be reconsidered and should provide for an obligation to use it only in cases where a legitimate public interest can be clearly discerned.

Russians ARE being discriminated against in Latvia. Even European bodies support this view.

Non-citizens have as little or as much rights in Latvia as they have in other countries.
List 5 countries who allow non citizens to vote or serve in police.
Name any reasonable country that would allow people who don't know national language serving for government.

Well, don't argue with me. Argue with international human rights organisations. I am just forwarding their findings.

No one is suggesting that government officials shouldn't speak Latvian. The problem is that these certificates are increasingly required in private sector, sometimes in ridiculous professions. It's up to private companies who they want to hire and what languages and to what level their hires should speak. We are moving toward a socialistic country with government heavily involved in all sorts of areas that should be left for private consideration.

Oh yes, being a "non-citizen" (well, there are no "non-citizens" in other European countries, more like permanent residents) you can participate in local elections in any European country except for Latvia.

Latvians can move to UK or Germany and take parts in local elections. I think they can even stand for election. It's quite ridiculous that some people who were born in Latvia have no right to participate in local election in any way. Which is what this report in highlighting.

And yes, permanent residents are allowed to join local police forces in several European countries. In fact, foreign nationals are allowed to serve in police forces in UK even if they are not in possession of the permanent residence permit:

"Under current rules, only citizens of the UK, the Republic of Ireland and Commonwealth countries are eligible to become police officers.Now, many more will be able to apply to pound the beat in Britain.A Home Office source said the initial plan was to allow foreigners already living here to join. But Mr Blunkett's moves to widen immigration for those wanting to work here could encourage many more overseas applications."

In Ireland foreign citizens are allowed to apply to work in police as well:

"If you are an EEA or Swiss national, you are entitled to be treated in the same way as Irish citizens when you apply for work in Ireland. You are free to apply for any job vacancy, including jobs in the public sector. These include jobs in the Irish army and the Irish police force (An Garda Síochána), but not the Irish diplomatic service."

And on a top of this a lot of so called "non-citizens" of Latvia were born and raised in Latvia and none of them are foreign citizens (foreign citizens have to apply for a residence permit and give up "non-resident" status). Sorry, can't spend too much time looking for 5 examples, but these two actually prove that this is a normal practice.

Does it apply to anybody or just EU nationals?
Are you saying that anybody from North Korea or Cuba or Angola or Sudan or Afganistan or Russia .... can do that?
Then why there are so many arranged marriages with EU citizens just to get EU residency?

I think in UK it's not just for EU citizens and in Ireland it's for EEA citizens. In any case "non-citizens" in Latvia are not even foreign citizens and they are regarded by European institutions as permanent residents of the European Union (hence they don't need visas to Schengen countries).

But this is not the most important issue that they raised in the report. There are several other more important issues related to the children of "non-citizens" and their voting right, for example. As you can see its not just some crazy Russians screaming about their right, this is a report produced by one of the European Commissions and it shows how Latvia could significantly improve policies towards minorities.

I am not saying that Latvia is a terrible country and all that. I love Latvia. It's my country. But Russians are just not being treated fairly here.

Well, living in the State of Latvia and having issues with the official state language which is Latvian is something. I would feel humiliated. Really. Imagine - you're in London and tube map prints are in English! Disaster!

That's precisely what most of young citizens of Latvia (irrrespective of ethnic origin) have been doing since their country became EU member - "moving Westwards." So if Latvians could not care less about "raising Latvian economy", why should anyone else be more patriotic?

I assume Switzerland would probably qualify as a "reasonable country". Until recently government employees there were only supposed to know 1 offical language out of 3.
I post the whole article for your convenience:

"The cabinet has decided that the nation’s languages should be represented proportionately within the federal administration.

With that in mind, language quotas will be introduced, the government announced on Friday.

The goal is that 70 per cent of government employees be German-speaking, 22 per cent French-speaking, seven per cent Italian-speaking and one per cent Romansh-speaking.

In order to support the linguistic minorities, the government has established a delegate for multilingualism. In addition, the ministries will hire additional translators.

The government also wants managers to be fluent in a second language and to have a working knowledge of a third one.

The new policy goes into effect on July 1. 2010"

Please note that the trend is INCLUSIVE, not EXCLUSIVE: Instead of saying "Those who do not speak Swiss German, get out of government job!" they want them to learn one more language. They even care about nearly dead Romansch!!
I suspect, however, this approach would be treated as high treason in Latvia.

"ASSIMILATION" is the word Russians use to describe situation in Latvia. YOU MUST BE JOKING! Look at the world map.
Referendum was organised by Russian Fascists and Nazi Bolsheviks. People here arguing for Russian language as official language in Latvia are either malignant or just plain ignorant.
Those who are not sure - come to Latvia see for Your self.

When you look at the map you can see that Russians are the Grand Masters in Assimilation. While Latvians have stayed on one soil for thousands of years, Russians have been expanding their territory all the time and have assimilated the most of the Eurasia.

Russians do not want to be assimilated. They want to assimilate others ;)

1. "the organisers wanted to polarise Latvian society"
[A] Was already, consistently polarised since early 90s. Instead of keeping the Russian and Latvian communities together (as they were) to build a prosperous, independent Latvia post-USSR, the governing elite methodically created a "Latvian only" ethnocracy. Modern Latvia has all traits of apartheid based on ethnicity, where any non-Latvian is at obvious disadvantage. The referendum's goal was to show that a significant proportion of the country's citizens speaks Russian natively and does not wish to be further subjected to multitude of discriminatory laws and practices that de-facto are an official policy.

2. "Some Russians have Latvian citizenship anyway [], others have adopted Latvian citizenship enthusiastically [], others refuse to consider applying for citizenship"
[A] More than “some” Russians have Latvian citizenship by birthright, and for a good reason: today’s Latvia is really a very young political formation, being part of the Russian empire for centuries prior to independence and where Russians, Latvians, and many other nationalities happily coexisted. Note that we are not talking about USSR here: there are hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russians in Latvia that have as legitimate ancestral right to live in Latvia as any ethnic Latvian next door (call them Group 1).
Which brings us to the next group of those Russians who arrived AFTER Latvia’s (voluntary incorporation, annexation, occupation – choose one) by USSR in 1940. Most were sent to Latvia to work and contributed along with ethnic Latvians to the economy of the Latvian republic (call them Group 2). Vast majority were not KGB or NKVD agents or military personnel, but civilian population rebuilding the country after devastating war. They didn’t know anything about “occupation” and frankly did not see any obvious resistance from local ethnic Latvian population to bring them to such conclusion.
Fast forward 50 years: vast majority of Latvian residents (Russians and Latvians) vote for Latvia’s independence (with some natural opposition, normal for such fundamental shakeup). Then, after their votes were used, all Group 2 members and their descendants are denied Latvian citizenship upon the country’s independence. They are given an “Alien” status with a right to naturalization only via humiliating “show of loyalty” to new Latvia (including testing on language and “alternative” Latvian history, and many documented abuses during this process). Some (~135K) agreed to obtain citizenship by this degrading process but did not do it “enthusiastically” as the article claims. Most (~300K) did not, and who would blame them?
More importantly, regardless of citizenship status, all Russian-speaking Latvian residents were universally labelled OCCUPANTS, whether those belonging to Group 1 (i.e. having ancestral rights) or Group 2 (which is largely comprised of people born in Latvia between 1940 and 1990 who should normally be allowed citizenship by birthright). The derogatory “OCCUPANT” label does not apply to these people in any legal or ethical sense, yet it is commonly used, with impunity, by the government officials and even more commonly on the street, with many ethnic Latvians having no qualms about using “Go back to Russia” argument.

The point this article is missing is that nearly all ethnic Russians in Latvia are born there and would like to see INTEGRATION as opposed to FORCIBLE ASSIMILATION into Latvian society; and this would obviously include the protection of their right to use Russian, their native language. Their connection to Russia proper is relatively minor, limited by common language, TV and media space and occasional trip to visit relatives. For this reason, all talk about “Moscow’s interests” and “Russian threat” is pure propaganda designed to mislead the public from the real roots of the problem. Ethnic Russians in Latvia are a distinct group with a distinct set of grievances that finally had the political will to organize into some form of peaceful protest such as the latest referendum. And unless the government reacts, more is sure to come.

Usually I agree with EL. This time I cannot quite agree neither with him nor with you.

Latvian society has not been polarized since early 1990ies. It has been polarized since 1940, when the true sovietization began. Small Russian-speaking ruling class, supported by the Soviet army and NKVD versus Latvian citizens. It can be that you really did not notice that, but it was there. The polarization. It was the time when even celebration of Christmas was a crime. You could have lost your job if spotted in church. Display of national flag was forbidden very strictly.

I do not want to blame you or other Soviet era immigrants. How could you have known that Soviet Union will disintegrate and Latvia will regain independence in 1991. You were wishing well for Latvians. Helping them to build the bright future. In 1970ies it was called "Advanced Socialism". Communism was set to arrive by 1980. When it failed to arrive, the social order was renamed as "Ripe Socialism". Later is was called, jokingly, "Rotten Socialism".

Fast population transfers cause friction. Especially if it happens without the consent of indigenous nation. Aboriginals, if you like that term ;)

I am sorry to say that, but it will take generations to heel the wounds inflicted in the 20th century. These too rapid and sometimes violent population transfers. Fortunately we are located in Northern Europe and not in Northern Africa, where people more hot tempered than we are.

Senior members of the Latvian branch of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were Kremlin puppets. Just like the senior members of the Latvian branch of the Nazi Party of Germany were Hitler's puppets. Just like Erich Honecker was a Kremlin puppet although DDR was formally an independent country.

Some previous thoughts, now clarified:
1) Based on the strong Latvian sentiment to protect their language: how did a single Russian Bolshevik (Lindermans) and an "ex-Nazi" from the Latvian Branch of the Russian National Union (Osipovs) get Russian on the ballot while the TB/LNNK failed to get Latvian on the ballot? Just take a look at Linderman’s own thoughts about the Latvian Language being only 150 years old,http://imhoclub.lv/material/latishskomu-jaziku-150-let
(that one was for you, Dmitry Katemirov, or shall I call you rawcamera?).
Inasmuch as the Kremlin would like to paint Latvians as a bunch of Nazi lovers, it is clear that the TB/LNNK does not enjoy a clear majority support among ethnic Latvians.
2) On the other hand, since Harmony Center (HC) embraced both Lindermans and Osipovs initiative, HC is now guilty of embracing ALL the baggage that comes with Lindermans and Osipovs obtuse ideology. Since HC mustered the collaborative effort from the Russian-speaking peoples in Latvia, does this make this block guilty by association too?
Of course it is funny to point out that according to the loony Linderman fringe, he argues that “there is no such thing as an ethnic Latvian.”(see end of linked Linderman’s online post). It is no small wonder that Nils Usikovs must be shaking his head in disbelief as to how this initiative backfired!
3) Yet many Russians still see Latvians as being Russophobes and Nazi sympathizers?http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2011/01/luzhkov_and_latvia
4) Did anyone notice that the Anti-Capitalist Action Baltics (AKAB) took a leading role in these protests as well? Nils Usikovs is seen clearly embracing the AKAB supporters.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMlHttroqrM&feature=related
Harmony Center and Nils, your colors are shining through!
5) Combine this with Josefs Korens (from the “World without Nazism”) commentaryhttp://www.imhoclub.lv/material/obraschenie-dvizhenija-latvija-bez-naciz...
with Koren's thoughts and deeds at the “anti-fascist” conference in 2009 (with Aleksander Gilman from “For Human Rights in United Latvia” there too). Take note of what Leena Hietanen says at 2:40.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4FAD-00ACg&context=C317301cADOEgsToPDskK...
Yet, Yet they wonder why Latvians do not trust them!
6) Let us not forget what Putin really thinks about Baltic history. He believes that in 1920 the Russians gave the Baltics to Germany only to have it returned to the USSR in 1939!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32X_FxR4KZg

Why are you mentioning Dmitry Katemirov? Is he participating in the discussion?

That is one really outlandish character (another Israel Shamir in a way). No wonder if he would be here mumbling again about "Latvian Nazis" as he always does. Probably he is not able to think about anything else.

It is so funny that russians call latvians nazi. This referendum was organized by two persons (at least officially) Linderman and Osipov.
This is osipovs organization http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4SE3J21yjo doesn,t seam a little bit nazi?

You wrote: "Some of them are third generations"
You mean three generations born in twenty years ? Amazing !
Sounds rather superhuman !
_________________________________

Answer for your question:

The first person was the son of Russian lawful emigrants. He was born in 1950 in Riga, Latvia
The second (his son) in 1970. Place of birth the same – Riga, Latvia
The third person (the first person’s grandson) was born in 1990 in Riga, Latvia
The all three do not have Latvian citizenship.
All of them have “alien” passports. No rights to vote, and many other restrictions.
In order to get citizenship, have to pass ridicules tests for Latvian history and language to prove someone that he earns the right to be Latvian citizen. The citizen of the country where he was born, have been living all his life (and even have not lived the country for longer than two weeks).
Question: why first, second and third person have to prove anything (in order to get Latvian citizenship) if they was born in Latvia and have been living there all their lives? Why they do not have citizenships automatically like in all civilized countries like for example USA? Their people not only was born in Latvia, they lived their all their lives!
Don’t you think that Latvia “cross all moral borders”?
Do you know that Latvia has SS Nazi parades every 16 of March? Do you know that some government authority support these movements?

It is (still) funny You re using name of the person who was a collaborator with Stalin occupation and was instrumental in sending people to Siberia.
As to 16 of March - ask Polish, Lithuanian and Estonian people why we don't like Hitler as much as Stalin. While You are at it, ask Russians why they are so bad at history?

You wrote: "Some of them are third generations"
You mean three generations born in twenty years ? Amazing !
Sounds rather superhuman !
Answer for your question:

The first person was the son of Russian lawful emigrants. He was born in 1950 in Riga, Latvia
The second, his son, in 1970. Place of birth – Riga, Latvia
Third person (the first person’s grandson) was born in 1990 in Riga, Latvia
The all three don not have citizenship.
All of them have “alien” passport. No rights to vote, and many other restrictions.
The third person, I n order to get citizenship, have to pass ridicules tests for Latvian history and language to prove someone that he earn the right to be the Latvian citizen. The citizen of the country where he was born, have been living all his life (and even did not go abroad longer for two weeks).
Question: why firs , second and third person have to prove anything if they was born in Latvia and have been living there all their lives? Why they do not have citizenships automatically like in all civilized countries?
Don’t you think that Latvia “cross all moral borders”?
Do you know that Latvia has SS Nazi parades every 16 of March?

It is funny You re using name of the person who was a collaborator with Stalin occupation and was instrumental in sending people to Siberia.
As to 16 of March - ask Polish, Lithuanian and Estonian people why we don't like Hitler as much as Stalin. While You are at it, ask Russians why they are so bad at history?

The fact that the person was born in Latvia's territories does not mean that they automatically have to be granted citizenship. Latvia does not owe anything to people who migrated into Latvia during the Soviet Union occupation. If these people want to live in Latvia - the citizenship test is open for them.
And, March of 16 is NOT a Nazi parade. Latvia is remembering those people who suffered during the Nazi occupation and were taken into the army.
And, by the way, in other "civilized" European countries you need to be born to parents who are nationals of the country. Look up Sweden, Germany etc. For instance, children born in Sweden to foreign parents do not acquire Swedish citizenship at birth, although if they remain resident in Sweden they may become Swedish later on. It is the same story. So stop trying to make Latvia some bad villain, you obviously are not well informed.

A handful of 80-year-olds with flowers surrounded by some MP's, supported openly by some hundreds of young people and supported whole-heartedly by several thousands sitting comfortably at homes...Who hasn't passed that test?

"The fact that the person was born in Latvia's territories does not mean that they automatically have to be granted citizenship. Latvia does not owe anything to people who migrated into Latvia during the Soviet Union occupation."

I thought Latvia was aiming to become a European liberal democracy? This sort of opinion would be considered very exotic in Europe.

"Why they do not have citizenships automatically like in all civilized countries?"

According to a Wikipedia article on the demographics of Latvia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Latvia, a child born in Latvia of two non-citizen parents has the right to citizenship, but "the parents must take the extra step of choosing Latvian citizenship for their child—who is automatically entitled, but for whom citizenship is not automatic (neither granted nor imposed)."

This actually seems more respectful than the state assigning citizenship on a child whose parents do not want it (because of possible future military requirements, for example).

Read my comment after the quote you picked -
if that is exotic, then most other European countries from your viewpoint can be considered "exotic"
Why European countries do not grant citizenship to foreign nationals just because they are there? Foreign immigrants and their children have an opportunity to become citizens in many countries, as well as Latvia.

If anything good comes out of this. Then it will be the light that is shone on the "Harmony Center" and the company it keeps.
Already they are under investigation about the huge money they got form "unknown" sources, and the "reports" they are sending to Moscow.
One thing I was surprised not to see in any international media was the name of the Lindermans' (main organiser) party. Guess what? It's called "National Bolshevik Party" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Linderman
Please have no doubt that there is a lot of effort and a lot of money going in all this "Oppressed Russians in Latvia" thing.

The only purpose of the referendum was to create tension; it was never meant to succeed. The proposal to amend the core of the Constitution and thus undermine the Latvian language was as impossible and insulting to Latvians as they could make it.

There are nations who were born to be world powers (culturally, militarily, technologically, economically, socially, politically and philosophically): Greece, Rome, France, Britain, Germany, Russia, USA, China, India, Japan and maybe Brazil in the near future), others were born to be great nations and countries: Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Argentina, Australia, Egypt, Israel, Saudi, Turkey, Persia, Canada, Mexico and south Korea or unified (countries that complement the world order through the values ​​cited above), other countries were born to be the main supporting cast as Holland, Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, Ukraine, South Africa, Indonesia, Thailand, Czech Rep, Hungary, Serbia, Chile, Algeria, Iran, Pakistan and Ireland) and go to the small nations of some importance (those with small supporting statements): Denmark, Finland, Belgium, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Colombia, Venezuela, Cuba, Nigeria, Morocco, New Zealand and Finally extras nations (those that do not appear in the credits of films): Bolivia, Honduras, Lithuania, Liechestein, Luxembourg, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Uruguay, Guyana, Angola, Uganda, Nepal, New Guinea, Belarus and other countries 150) .
What I want to say that Poland and Lithuania should ignore his Nationalist government, who needs Lithuania.The Lithuania should understand that Poland did not want any change of borders, it would mean the German revisionism in Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia. Only the right of EU laws on minorities and respect on the tongue. The German minority in Poland (Silesia between 153,000 to 300,000 have all the rights), why not give to Lithuania to speakers of Polish (we all know that these German Silesians are a mixture of Germans with Poles, some as young as 1 / 4 or 1/8 or 1/16 "blood" German, but people have the right to decide which nationality or language, they must belong to or express) your rights (if they are Lithuanians, Belarusians, Ukrainians, Poles who feel is their right and no nationalist, anthropologist, politician or historian who will define it)!

Are you smoking something?
Your categorization of countries is just amazing. Greece never was word power, Macedonia was, Persia wasn,t a great power? Don,t you forget Persian empire? Thous are just a couple examples how incompetent you are.

One reason for the Russians preferring to live in Latvia or elsewhere in the Baltics has been explained by Putin's campaign manager Govorukhin who was quoted as follows:

"“Corruption is more inherent here than in these countries, but we’re crawling our way out of frightening thievery and lawlessness.”

Govorukhin is known for directing several popular Soviet and Russian films. He is also known for his views that Internet is controlled by the US.

For the record: Russia took 143rd place in 2011 in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index, on-par with Uganda and Nigeria. A widely touted campaign to root out corruption started by President Dmitry Medvedev in 2008 has brought few results.

Of course everyone needs to learn Latvian, this is not an issue at all.

But it doesn't mean that that there should be no place for Russian in a public space. Ethnic minorities all over Europe have their languages recognised as local official languages, for example. They all have education in their own language. This is not a rocket science, just basic and universally accepted human rights.

Not all ethnic minorities in Europe have their languages protected. Generally it's where language is in need of protection against the majority language (see: Basque, Romansch, Welsh etc), or where the language is one of long standing not brought about by an invasion (see: bilingualism in Belgium, Luxembourg). Immigration, whether legitimate or illegitimate, doesn't give the immigrating minority a right to have their language recognized - otherwise, Arabic would be an official language of France, Turkish an official language of Germany, etc. The fact that the initial immigration was illegitimate is but one more reason not to give the language special status.

Russians in Latvia are not just immigrants and obviously they are not some sort of "illegitimate immigrants". Russians lived in Latvia for a long time and before unconstitutional over through of the government in 1934 Russian language (along with other languages) enjoyed much cultural autonomy.

Besides, history is a complicates thing, Sweden ruled Finland for a long time and clearly Swedish was brought to Finland "by invasion", but it doesn't stop it from being recognized.

On the other point, Hungarian is protected in Romania even though there is no actual threat to the existence of the language. The same with German in northern Italy or Swedish in Finland.

There is no reason why Russian could not be recognized of official language in some parts of the country.

This is quite clearly nonsense. You are once again labouring the same old ridiculous idea that Russians in Latvia are somehow immigrants or descendants of immigrants. First, Latvia has had a very significant Russian population since before Latvians had their own alphabet (let alone their own state). Secondly, those ethnic Russians who arrived in Latvia during the existence of the USSR cannot be considered immigrants because they did not arrive from a different country. It's exactly like (if the Scots vote for independence) Alex Salmond calling English people living in Scotland immigrants and insisting that they had 300 years to learn Gaelic. Let's not be silly.

Crikey, you guys are obsessed with ethnicity and racial statistics. There seem to be whole government departments in Riga working out the precise ethnic composition of the country at every moment in its brief history.

Totally agree. I have moved to different countries and have managed to learn a language from zero to fluent level enough to work in a service industry. An this was withing 6 months -not a 'lifetime', just out of the respect for the country and therefore I get the respect back from locals.

It is not "right" for a second generation or even third generation not to have a citizenship - but then again learn a language and assimilate if you wish to be Latvian.

I think that the competitiveness of school leavers in the job market is more of a problem for the Latvians. The vast majority of Russian kids are fluent in Latvian, Russian and English. The Latvians have missed an entire generation of teaching Russian in their schools properly. Ironically, this is now putting Latvian young people at a disadvantage because most employers expect their hires to speak all three languages.

There are state funded minority schools in many European countries (don't forget they are funded with taxes paid by a minority), in fact in Finland there are not only state funded Swedish-speaking schools, but every Finns should learn Swedish in should (Swedes are only 6% of the population). In Romania not only there are state funded Hungarian schools, but also state funded university education in Hungarian. This is a normal practise in any civilised country and it doesn't endanger the majority language in any way.

Besides, no one is suggesting that minorities shouldn't learn the majority language, of course they should, but they also have a right for certain cultural and linguistic autonomy and some recognition to their language.

Somebody made a point that ALL Russians are immigrants, which is a lie and your numbers prove it. There was a very large Russian-speaking minority in Latvia BEFORE 1940. Change in numbers is irrelevant, 200k Russians should have the same basic human rights as 700k Russians, no one is asking for any "extras" as compared to other European countries.

No disrespect, but in the end of the day if a matter of your own choice, personal growth and respect. I have many friends who are completely bilingual Russian/Latvian and therefore have more opportunities in life. They have managed to keep their own culture and combine it with Latvian and get the most benefits out of it. As Russian is essential for business and Latvian is essential for relationships and respect (my own opinion of course). And they did not care at all what would be the result of this referendum as it will not affect them negatively.
I accept both cultures living together, but you also have to respect as SMALL nation wanting to protect their language and heritage. It's essential to think about 'sides'.. (although there should be no sides as it's the same country..)

Knowing Russian has opened many does to me. Mastering Latvian in Latvia will certainly open many doors for you.. think about that
Best of luck.

They know Latvian already. Referendum has nothing to do with Latvian language. Nobody voted against Latvian language itself, they voted for second language. If second state language exists it doesn't mean that first language disappers.

I totally agree that all Russians should speak Latvian. I would never dispute this and I speak Latvian myself. In fact, I like Latvian as a language.

But it doesn't mean that Latvian should try to assimilate Russians. It's one think to know Latvian and use it professionally or socially and completely another forcing Russian to give up Russian education for their kids and denying ANY sort of recognition to the language spoked by some 35-40% of the population.

I don't understand how can you possibly protect your language by suppressing use of my language? No one is trying to stop you from speaking Latvian, you are safe.

Actually Russians weren't the largest ethnic minority until after WW 2, before that Germans were the largest minority.
And we, Latvians, have a right to choose whether Russian is an official language or it is not. Guess what? We've decided.

Let's start with what we can agree on. You write “they also have a right for certain cultural and linguistic autonomy”... Agreed. Every person has the right to maintain their cultural roots &, in Latvia, already does.

Every language & culture is precious. By maintaining it, not only will the holder benefit, so will his adoptive country. The more cultures we have to enjoy, the wealthier we all become.

As to Russian language schools, they already exist. There is a plethora of Russian language media, books, theaters etc. No one is preventing anyone from speaking Russian at home, on the street, &, at the discretion of the employer, in the workplace, except that they must not refuse service in the national language.

What more do you want?

On to your examples, Finland and Romania. Thanks for providing these. I was aware that Finland, formally, was bilingual, and that this continued to be a source of some tension, I but did not know that children could choose their primary language of instruction.

That being said, these examples, it seems to me, do not support your argument very well... Why?

To start with, two exceptions do not make something a “norm” or a “right”. The “norm” remains that you receive state schooling in the language of the country.

As to Finland:
1) it, for historical reasons, is constitutionally bilingual,
2) historically, the percentage of “Swedish” speakers was much higher than today,
3) one of the arguments for teaching the Swedish dialect(s) has been that it mutually ineligible not only with Swedish but also Danish and Norwegian, hence gives Finns the ability to communicate with the rest of Scandinavia,
4) The Swedish dialect(s) spoken are unique and are not spoken anywhere else in the world,
5) While all are required to learn both languages, the level of language skills achieved have in many cases been low, In other words, streamed schooling has not provided adequate levels of bilingualism,
6) The duality of language and enforced teaching of it has been a source of discontent and stress and proposals to discontinue.

To comment on just a few of these points, just as the Finns view Swedish as important in contacts, regionally, it is very common that Latvians choose Russian as their third language in school.

Starting with the 6 th. grade, students in Latvia are expected to choose a third language. When petitioned, the parents in my eldest's class UNANIMOUSLY choose Russian. Not because they felt their child should need it in Latvia, but recognizing that, regionally, Russian will continue to be a language.

There is no chauvinism or disrespect for Russian. It is an important language regionally, but must NOT displace the local language.

This is also true of Latvian, which is spoken only in Latvia & would disappear entirely if it disappeared here. It is NOT the case for Russian which, in addition to its own huge country right next door, is also widely spoken elsewhere in the region.

5&6) official bilingualism, IMHO, does not work...

I was born in Canada and lived there until 1992.

While officially bilingual, most anglophones did not speak French, except regionally, & many Francophones outside of the larger urban centers did not speak English.

There was tension amongst both groups, a separatist movement & even a short lived terrorist group over language tensions. Can't call that a success...

Bilingualism is also a source of tension, even if often latent, in the Benelux & Switzerland, where I have spent enough time to have a feel for the mood & ethnic strife has been the cause of regional conflicts as reported by the media from Spain to Africa & also, of course, in Finland and even more so in Romania.

The kickers, from my point of view, are two points. First, as you point out, the Finlandsvenska speaking minority is less than 6% of the population. It, therefore, is far to small to overwhelm the local language.

In Latvia, due to Russification attempts during the Soviet occupation, the ethnic Russians population has risen from a 10% preoccupation to 27% now with some other ethnic minorities also having Russian as a first or home language. Further, ethnic Russians are concentrated primarily in large urban centers and areas near the Russian border and in these areas, in some cases make up a linguistic majority!

If the ethnic Russian population was still 10%, it could be quite possible to have streamed schools without threatening the national language, but under the existing circumstances, it could well lead to what the Soviet's failed to do during the occupation, the loss of a culture and one of the oldest spoken languages in the world!

In my opinion Russian Latvians should first make sure they (and I mean everybody until a certain age) speak proper Latvian.
I was born and raised outside of Latvia and, thus, do not speak Russian. But I have experienced problems in Latvia because of that. Retailers refuse to talk to me in Latvian and even turned away from me (happened in a tie shop at Galleria Riga last year) and I was not offered a job in a big international company mainly because in operations employees cannot speak Latvian (despite my medium experience in the headquarter in Germany). As operations is locally based, with local products/suppliers etc. there was no real need for asking Russian as a mandatory language for that job.
Allowing Russian becoming an official language would definitely harm Latvian. Russian Latvians would have less need (actually almost no need) to learn Latvian. And from my personal experience and dominant attitude of many Russians I strongly believe many would not use Latvian and try to force Latvians speak their language.

I appreciate re-conciliatory tone of your comment, this is something our society badly lack these days. Especially since politicians are busy scoring political points on issues related to ethnicity.

Still, you argument if off the point. It's not up to a majority to decide whether minority should be protected or not, it's up to a minority to exercise it's internationally recognized rights for protection. The fact that Latvia is stopping us from doing so is a plain violation of international conventions of minority rights, which is why Latvia failed to fully ratify them. Which is a shame, really.

Following your logic genocide is not an international crime at all. It's just that majority have decided to strip minority of their right to live. No, it doesn't work like that, there are certain internationally recognized rights with rights of minorities being one of them.

Finland and Romania are not the exception. Latvia is one. The fact that you personally doesn't like multicultural societies is irrelevant in this discussion, we are not talking about personal likes or dislikes, we are talking about international standards which Latvia is failing to comply with.

P.S. I find it extremely ironic that somebody who was born and probably raised in Canada is lecturing me, somebody who was born and raised in Latvia, what I can and can't do in my own country which I love and which I am very proud of. No offence, but it's you who is an immigrant here, not me or my parents or my grandparents who always lived in Latvia.

Many ethnic Russians, older people and kids, have learned Latvian, to different levels of proficiency. Many more, including youth, have not and can barely say "labdien".

In everyday life and social situations, it is difficult to tell who has not learned Latvian and who is just refusing to speak it (which is pretty arrogant and chauvinistic in and off itself). As an employer, however, I doubt that applicants are intentionally ruining their chances of being hired by pretending the Latvian language skills are less than they actually are.

I do agree that many youth who entered the educational system right after the end of the occupation, out of national pride at the renewal of independence or hoping integration would be faster, foolishly did not learn Russian. In major centers, however, most of them had learned it at the playground even before they entered school. For youth from smaller centers and rural areas, more of a problem.

So why has integration been so slow? Quite possible because the government and Latvians at large have been so forthcoming and flexible to date, to make integration painless, that Russian speakers have been able to get by without knowing Latvian.

Frankly, while it is not a solution I am really comfortable with, I am not sure that it might not be time to make demanding Russian language skills illegal, unless it is needed for international business contacts.

Bending over backwards hasn't been appreciated, maybe the only way is to make it inescapable.

While most who arrived here as part of the Soviet Russification attempts during the occupation most likely had no understanding of the hidden agenda or the illegality of the Russification & are not personally to be blamed for the resulting problems, if they wish to make their future here it only makes sense that they participate in creating the solution, not expecting all goodwill to be shown by ethnic Latvians.

"Latvia ratified the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities on 6 June 2005, but at the same time, and contrary to the spirit of the FCNM, introduced two amendments requiring local government to function and street signs to be written in the Latvian language only. No specific arrangements were made to allow for areas compactly settled by national minorities to communicate with local government in their own language" (http://www.minorityrights.org/?lid=4963&tmpl=printpage)

All I want is that my country comply with Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.

First, no one is saying that Russian should be a state language here. I am saying again and again that it should be recognized, but not necessarily as second state language. Majority if Russians would be totally happy with Russian as official language in some local municipalities where there is a Russian majority.

Second, Russian is not recognized in Finland or Poland because there is no significant Russian minority. In Latvia significant Russian minority was present before 1940 and is still present now, hence the need to recognize it. Again, no one is asking for some extraordinary things, just normal human respect for the minority and recognition of minority rights up to international standards.

These two points are a heck of a lot less than what is being demanded, though. Are you seriously suggesting that if Latvia achieves complete compliance on these two points, there will be no more demands, everyone will happily, finally, learn Latvian and not refuse to speak it?

Further as to these points...

The convention does NOT forsee municipal government working internally in minority languages, as this would put speakers of the official language at a disadvantage.

It does encourage ensuring that people can conduct their business with the municipal government (subject to all sorts of where possible etc., etc.) in their minority language where there is sufficient demand, the minority has historically had a substantial presence...

After all of the conditions, it could well be argued that this would then apply only to several municipalities in Latgalia plus a few larger urban centers. Riga to be sure, possibly Liepaja and Ventspils, though I am not sure that the Russian minority was substantial prior to the occupation, which would be the logical benchmark.

In any case, I have not had to petition any of the above municipalities in Russian, but imagine you could write to any of them in Russian and receive a reply in the same. In Daugavpils, for example, it might be considerably harder to get a response in Latvian!

If, however, you are aware on anyone in these municipalities, or any municipalities which meet the criteria, not getting service or a reply in Russian, I will gladly join with you in encouraging the municipality to live up to the spirit of the convention.

I would suggest, however, that it is extremely unlikely that you would not receive your response in Russian from ANY municipality, even where there is not and has not historically been a substantial ethnic Russian minority, and even from federal agencies.

As to the street signs, or what I presume to mean street signs, (the convention refers to "topographic signs", but what else could that be...)

Under the terms of the convention, only some areas in Latgalia and possibly Riga might be eligible, though it could, if Latvia wished, equally argued that it has not implemented these to protect the official language.

Personally, I suspect the economic downturn and resulting lack of funds could be more at fault.

This first monitoring report right after implementation suggested further work on only these two points, while congratulating Latvia on all that it has done ti ease integration. The next monitoring was scheduled for the end of 2011, so hopefully we will see the new report soon.

I am not aware of any law that street signs can be only in Latvian, or that municipal governments cannot correspond with their inhabitants in a minority language nor, at a quick glance, could I find anything like that in the online database.

If you have the specific name and or date and number of such a law, I would gladly look into it.

In any case, if unilingual street signs are the only complaint you have, I would suggest Latvia is doing very well indeed and better than many much larger and more established democracies.

Maybe, in addition to suggesting more that could be done, it is time you start acknowledging & appreciating how much already has been done.

The simple fact is that Latvia have not fully ratified Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Full stop. Stop making excuses, just ratify the damn thing. I am still astonished that somebody who comes from Canada, country with developed democratic institutions and proper protection of the minority population advocates totally unlawful discrimination against minority population in Latvia.

I am convinced that if Russian were recognized as official language in certain municipalities (parts of Latgalia, Riga etc.) and citizens were OFFICIALLY (not through the back door) allowed to use their language when communicating with authority this would be enough to significantly ease off ethnic tensions. In no way this would damage standing of the Latvian language.

Your argument about economic downturn (that's in 2005!) impacting ratification of Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities is a joke. I think you realise it yourself. You are not taking it seriously, are you? :)

If you don't have a problem with FCPNM then just ratify it and stop making excuses.

Another problem is that Latvian nationalists want to strip Russian-speaking minority even of the rights that they have now(as we both agreed already not to international standards). Campaign of VL to stop Russians from education their children in their own minority schools was a huge provocation and this referendum is what they got in response. It's not just that Russian-speaking minority is being discriminated against according to the international standards it's also that it's under constant assault from the nationalist parties.

Funny enough just today was released another ECRI report on Latvia. ECRI - European Commission against Racism and Intolerance.

Just a few issues pointed out in the report:

The policy on state language should be reconsidered and should provide for an obligation to use it only in cases where a legitimate public interest can be clearly discerned. (Clearly shows that current policy on state language is inadequate with restrictions being applied to too many professions.)

The legal provisions under which the regional court may terminate the mandate of an elected member if he/she does not meet set language requirements, should be abrogated. (In plain English - stop hysteria around state language.)

All attempts to commemorate persons who fought in the Waffen SS and collaborated with the Nazis, should be condemned. Any gathering or march legitimising in any way Nazism should be banned. (So, what about 16th of March this year? It looks like some members of one of the ruling parties will participate!)

Children who were born of “non-citizen” parents in Latvia after its independence should be granted Latvian citizenship automatically. (Russian community were lobbying for this for years now with no success.)

ECRI urges the Latvian authorities to review the new law on electronic media in so far as it restricts the right to broadcast in minority languages. It also urges them to refrain from hindering the use of minority languages during the election
campaigns.

Further to the amendments to the Law on Police (in force since 1 November 2010), “noncitizens” who were previously working in the municipal police have had to resign as at 1 March 2011, unless they had applied for naturalisation. ECRI finds that this measure amounts to direct racial discrimination as it involves differential treatment based on grounds of nationality which has no objective and reasonable justification. ECRI in fact fails to understand why persons who were deemed fit to work and serve for Latvia are no longer seen as such, in the absence of any change in the relevant circumstances.

ECRI reiterates its recommendation that the Latvian authorities confer eligibility and voting rights to resident “non-citizens” in local elections. (Russian community is lobbying for this all the time and is being completely ignored.)

In its third report in 2008, ECRI reiterated its recommendation that Latvia sign and/or ratify the following international instruments as soon as possible: (a) Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); (b) the European Social Charter (Revised); (c) the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages; (d) the European Convention on Nationality; (e) the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level; (f) the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers; and (g)
the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families.
ECRI notes that, with the exception of the European Social Charter (Revised), NO progress has been made in the signature and/or ratification of the above international legal instruments.

Is it enough? I mean I could go on, there is a lot more in this report. Will you still try to be funny with the road0signs issue? Latvian nationalists made our country an embarrassment for the whole of Europe now.

Personally, I would quite like to see some multilingual street signs, especially in the old towns of those areas with a diverse ethnic history. Could be charming, but that does not make it an obligation.

3) Do you not understand the terminology or are you upping the ante again?

Official language status would give Russian status equal to Latvian in all aspects, not just the right to petition its municipality in Russian. Russian would, in that case, also lose minority language status.

You agree that it is not a problem to petition a municipality in Russian but still aren't satisfied?!

4) You are right. The thirty years I spent in Canada gave me a very western view of democracy and rights.

So let's start with a definition of what is a right. A "right" is something guaranteed by the laws of a country or international conventions, declarations or other agreements, not anything you happen to wish for. If you say something is a right, you have to explain why, not just claim it is.

Based on my perspective, formed in Canada, and in my humble lay opinion, not only IS Latvia up to all international standards, it far surpasses them and has already done far more than, I believe, any other western state would, including many that were advising and encouraging Latvia to go the extra step in the early years!

With that background, I have often tended to promote dialogue & rapprochement. TB/LNNK, I have felt, has often campaigned with the best economic program, but the vitriol of some people I view as extremists in the party kept me from voting for them.

Frankly, seeing as I have how Latvia has bent over backwards to accommodate but his has not only not been appreciated, it has even been repaid with a figurative slap to the face, I doubt that I will be as conciliatory in future.

If a referendum were held tomorrow suggesting tightening the very generous naturalization laws and banning anti Latvian discrimination, I would probably vote for!

For those who wish to be Latvian and make their future here, respecting the country, its history, language & past, great. For those to wish to make demand after demand while not accepting responsibilities, no one is forcing them to stay, but if they wish too, they need to recognize it is a two way street.

Just one more minor point...

The downturn started in 2008, not 2005. 2012 is the first year without further budget cuts to items as basic as education and health care. If the essentials are being cut, it would not be surprising if changing street signs was put on hold, if, indeed, anyone has any plans to do so.

When I say that Latvia have not "fully" ratified the convention I mean that we added significant amendments. You can't fully ratify an agreement, but at the same time attach amendments that contradict not only the spirit, but also the letter of the agreement.

You made a point that Latvia did not fully ratify the agreement due to "economic downturn". Agreement was ratified (with amendments) in 2005 when there was no sign of the downturn yet.

I did not yet find all of the quotes you include, but even after a first quick glance, I note you fail to mention the many positive comments on progress, instead focusing only on areas where it is felt further improvement is still possible.

You also have failed to take into account or mention the comments of the Latvian government.

The impression you leave, or confirm, is that you have no desire to discuss to reach agreement, but rather to inflame. Rather pointless...

I will continue to read the report for my own interest, but clearly it is far to large for a full analyses here.

These reports are prepared periodically on all EC member states and all get comments. Remember and note, the ECRI is is most cases not citing international conventions or laws but constantly pushing the envelope for more than is currently mandated.

If you read the one for, say, France or Latvia, you will see recommendations. Read the one for Russia and your toes will curl, but that is not the point here. ;D

You will find these quotes in recommendations section, I just copy-pasted them as they are and added my comments in brackets.

Yes, there are some positive findings. I was never suggesting that Latvian government is running an apartheid system, was I? :) it's not all bad, but there are some significant shortcomings which minorities in Latvia, along with international institutions, find discriminatory.

The purpose of this comment was to highlight shortcoming of the current policies towards minorities in Latvia. Not in France, not in Russia. In Latvia, which is my country. I am not sure how you can find these quotes inflammatory, these are just finding of the official European body.

P.S. On a different note, I find TB/DNNL program to be too left-wing, sometimes they seem to be even more left wing then SC. I personally preferred ZRP economic program in last elections.